Sunday, November 30, 2008

This Year, Why Not Try Something Different







































This Year, Why Not Try Something Different


ONE THING I am thankful for on Thanksgiving weekend is having absolutely no desire to go to the mall. I cannot remember the last time I did so, which by extension leaves me utterly out of touch with the national impulse to waddle out of bed at 4 a.m., especially the morning after the biggest collective burp on the American calendar.

It seems that it is not enough for Americans to watch football on turkey day. Obviously inspired by our beloved black-and-blue brutality, otherwise sane Americans treat Black Friday as their day in the NFL, blasting through the hole of the store opening to the 20-, the 30-, the 40-, the 50-percent-off sweater department! Then you chop-block the shopper ahead of you to advance from 53d to 52d in the checkout line.

All this sweat, tears, and occasional blood for the argyle for dear old Dad that becomes moth bait.

This year is, of course, different. Black Friday really turned tragic as a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death in New York. This and the economy stinks. President-elect Obama has said for two years the planet is in peril. That originally only referred to global warming. But Americans keep thinking we can pilfer the planet at no peril. SUV sales are already picking up again now that gasoline is back under $2 a gallon, at the very same time we whine like the Wicked Witch of the West, shrinking to our knees screaming that our wallets are "melting! melting!"

This would seem like a great time to reassess the difference between what we want and what we need, both for the wallet and the planet. The National Retail Federation estimates that 49 million Americans were sure to go shopping this weekend. That is one-sixth of America. Depending how deep the discounts go, up to 128 million Americans could clog the aisles, over a third of the nation. One shopping center in Wisconsin, which opened at midnight after Thanksgiving, offered free pajamas to shoppers who came in pajamas. Mattel is throwing $50 Visa cards at $100 Barbie shoppers. Department stores were offering toys at half off and bringing back layaway plans.

The federation said this week, "For the first time since March 2005, the average price of self-serve, unleaded gasoline is $1.91, leaving shoppers with a little extra padding in their wallets . . . Shoppers who held off buying a DVD player or winter coat over the last few months will find that prices may literally be too good to pass up."

Like crack cocaine, I suppose. The Associated Press, in getting the reaction of motorists to the price of gasoline falling to an average of $1.79 in Columbus, Ohio, quoted one woman as saying, "It's awesome. With this gas guzzler, there was no way I could afford to keep paying, the way we're going."

Friday, November 28, 2008

Stimulus Now









































Stimulus Now

But it is the policy, not the personnel, that is most important. The early signs are that the policy is essentially sound. Obama has directed his economic team to put together a major jobs package that would "put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies."

That's the good news. The bad news is that the economy is tanking so quickly we can't wait around until January 20, and a lame-duck government has essentially abdicated its role to Ben Bernanke's Fed and Hank Paulson's Treasury. But the Fed's attempts at monetary stimulus have lost almost all traction: long-term interest rates and the Fed funds rate are now moving in opposite directions.

We should expect no leadership from Bush and company at this point. But Congress can take steps now to hold the economy together and to move quickly toward a deeper stimulus package. Congress should reconvene after Thanksgiving to pass an immediate bridge loan for the auto industry and its workers to get them through to January, before debating a more comprehensive rescue package that transforms Detroit into a more viable, innovative, green industry

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

That Will Be With Me the Rest of My Life







































That Will Be With Me the Rest of My Life
Nations in flux are nations in need. A new president will soon take office, facing hard choices not only about two long-running wars and an ever-deepening economic crisis, but about a government that has long been morally adrift. Torture-as-policy, kidnappings, ghost prisons, domestic surveillance, creeping militarism, illegal war-making, and official lies have been the order of the day. Moments like this call for truth-tellers. For Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. For witnesses willing to come forward. For brave souls ready to expose hidden and forbidden realities to the light of day.

Lawrence B. Wilkerson is such a man. He came to national prominence in October 2005 when -- having left his post as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell earlier in the year -- he laid bare some of the secrets of the Bush White House as he had experienced them. He had been inside the halls of power as the invasion and occupation of Iraq took shape. In Bush's second term, on the outside, he found that he had had enough. The American people, he thought, had a right to know just how their government was really working, and so he offered them this vision of the Bush administration in action: "[S]ome of the most important decisions about U.S. national security -- including vital decisions about postwar Iraq -- were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

In the years since, Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, has not been reticent, especially when it came to "the militarization of America's foreign policy" and the practice of extraordinary rendition (the kidnapping of terror suspects and their deliverance into the hands of regimes ready and willing to torture them).

Nor, earlier this year, did he shy away from testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties about how, in 2004, while still at the State Department, he had compiled "a dossier of classified, sensitive, and open source information" on American interrogation and imprisonment practices at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that yielded, he said, "overwhelming evidence that my own government had sanctioned abuse and torture."

"We have damaged our reputation in the world and thus reduced our power," he told the panel in closing. "We were once seen as the paragon of law; we are now in many corners of the globe the laughing stock of the law."

Wilkerson has spent most of his adult life in the service of the United States government as a soldier for 31 years, including military service in Vietnam; as a special assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as the Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College; and finally, from 2002 to 2005, as chief of staff to Powell at the State Department. His most vital service to his country, however, has arguably been in the years since.

Wilkerson has become a blunt truth-teller, and of all the truths he has told, there is one that's especially personal and painful; one that, after so many years, he could have kept to himself, but decided not to. It's a story, now decades old, of truth, consequences, and a dead little girl. It is no less timely for that, offering essential lessons, especially to U.S. troops engaged in seemingly interminable wars that have left countless civilians, little girls included, dead.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Nail That Double Standard to the Mast!



























































































Nail That Double Standard to the Mast!
Since there's one standard for automakers and another for bankers, the quickest way for GM to pick up some loose change would be to buy a few banks and thus get the company's mitts on some of the Treasury's $700 billion. If insurance companies are doing it, why not GM?

A story on the Bloomberg wire on November 17 told us that four of the world's biggest insurers, including Transamerica and Hartford Financial Services Group, may buy some ailing S&Ls in trouble with the Office of Thrift Supervision for making shifty loans. That way the insurance giants can join the excited line at the back door of the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and dip into the moolah. "Hartford's $10 million acquisition of Sanford, Florida-based Federal Trust Corp.," Bloomberg's reporters wrote, "may entitle it to $3.4 billion of U.S. capital. Lincoln National in Philadelphia may win access to $3 billion by taking over Newton County Loan & Savings, which has three full-time employees and $7.3 million of assets."

Friday, November 21, 2008

Robert Gates As Bad As Rumsfeld?








































































Robert Gates As Bad As Rumsfeld?
"As Bad As Rumsfeld?" The title jars, doesn't it. The more so, since Defense Secretary Robert Gates found his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, such an easy act to follow. But the jarring part reflects how malnourished most of us are on the thin gruel served up by the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).

Over the past few months, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has generated accolades from FCM pundits—like the Washington Post's David Ignatius—that read like letters of recommendation to graduate school. This comes as no surprise to those of us familiar with Gates' dexterity in orchestrating his own advancement. What DOES come as a surprise is the recurring rumor that President-elect Barack Obama may decide to put new wine in old wineskins by letting Gates stay.

What can Barack Obama be thinking?

I suspect that those in Obama's circle who are promoting Gates may be the same advisers responsible for Obama's most naïve comment of the recent presidential campaign: that the "surge" of U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007-08 "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

Succeeded? You betcha—the surge was a great success in terms of the administration's overriding objective. The aim was to stave off definitive defeat in Iraq until President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney could swagger from the West Wing into the western sunset on Jan. 20, 2009. As author Steve Coll has put it, "The decision [to surge] at a minimum guaranteed that his [Bush's] presidency would not end with a defeat in history's eyes. By committing to the surge [the president] was certain to at least achieve a stalemate."

According to Bob Woodward, Bush told key Republicans in late 2005 that he would not withdraw from Iraq, "even if Laura and [first-dog] Barney are the only ones supporting me." Later, Woodward made it clear that Bush was well aware in fall 2006 that the U.S. was losing. Suddenly, with some fancy footwork, it became Laura, Barney—and Robert Gates. And at the turn of 2006-07 the short-term fix was in.

But Please, No More Troops!

By the fall of 2006 it had become unavoidably clear that a new course had to be chosen and implemented in Iraq, and virtually every sober thinker seemed opposed to sending more troops. The senior military, especially CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid and his man on the ground, Gen. George Casey, emphasized that sending still more U.S. troops to Iraq would simply reassure leading Iraqi politicians that they could relax and continue to take forever to get their act together.

Here, for example, is Gen. Abizaid's answer at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Nov. 15, 2006 to Sen. John McCain, who had long been pressing vigorously for sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq:

Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad sent a classified cable to Washington warning that "proposals to send more U.S. forces to Iraq would not produce a long-term solution and would make our policy less, not more, sustainable," according to a New York Times retrospective on the surge by Michael R. Gordon published on Aug. 31, 2008.

Khalilzad was arguing, unsuccessfully, for authority to negotiate a political solution with the Iraqis.

There was also the establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, created by Congress and led by Republican stalwart James Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton. After months of policy review during 2006—with Gates as a member—it issued a final report on Dec. 6, 2006, which began with the ominous sentence, "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." The report called for:

"A change in the primary mission of US. Forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly… By the first quarter of 2008…all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."

Robert Gates, who was CIA director under President George H. W. Bush and then president of Texas A&M, had returned to the Washington stage as a member of the Iraq Study Group. While on the ISG, he evidenced no disagreement with its emerging conclusions—at least not until Bush asked him in early November if he might like to become secretary of defense.

Never one to let truth derail ambition, Gates suddenly saw things quite differently. After Bush announced his nomination on Nov. 8, Gates quit the ISG, but kept his counsel about its already widely reported recommendations.

Gates to the Rescue

Gates would do what he needed to do to become defense secretary. At his confirmation hearing on Dec. 5, he obscured his opinions by telling the Senate Armed Services Committee only that "all options are on the table in terms of Iraq." Many Democrats, however, assumed that Gates would help persuade Bush and Cheney to implement the ISG's recommendation of a troop drawdown.

With unanimous Democratic support and only two conservative Republicans opposed, Gates was confirmed by the full Senate on Dec. 6, the same day the ISG report was formally released.

Yet, the little-understood story behind Bush's decision to catapult Robert Gate into his Pentagon perch hinges on the astonishing fact that Donald Rumsfeld, of all people, was pulling a Robert McNamara; that is, he was going wobbly on a war based largely on his own hubris-laden, misguided advice. As Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com has reported, in the fall of 2006 Rumsfeld was having a reality attack. In Rumsfeldian parlance, the man had come face to face with a "known known."

On Nov. 6, 2006, a day before the midterm elections, Rumsfeld sent a memo to the White House (see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03mtext.html). In the memo Rumsfeld acknowledged, "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough." The rest of his memo sounded very much like the emerging troop-drawdown conclusions of the Iraq Study Group report.

The first 80 percent of Rumsfeld's memo addressed "Illustrative Options," including his preferred—or "above the line"—options like "an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases…to five by July 2007" and withdrawal of U.S. forces "from vulnerable positions—cities, patrolling, etc….so the Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country."

Finally, Rumsfeld had begun to listen to his generals and others who knew which end was up.

The hurdle? Bush and Cheney were not about to follow Rumsfeld's example in going wobbly. Like Robert McNamara at a similar juncture during Vietnam, Rumsfeld had to be let go before he caused a president to "lose a war."

Acutely sensitive to this political bugaboo, Rumsfeld included the following sentences at the end of the preferred-options section of his Nov. 6 memo:

"Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.'" (emphasis added)

The remainder of the memo listed "Below the Line—less attractive options." The top three in the "less attractive" category were:

"--Continue on the current path.
--Move a large fraction of all U.S. forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.
--Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces substantially."

In other words, a surge. (It is a safe bet that people loyal to Rumsfeld at the National Security Council alerted him to the surge-type of plans being hatched off line by neo-conservative strategists, and that he and his generals wanted to bury them well "below the line.")

But in the White House's view, Rumsfeld had outlived his usefulness. One can assume that he floated these trial balloons with Cheney and others, before he sent over the actual memo on Nov. 6, 2006. What were Bush and Cheney to do?

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

How Did We Ever Let Bush Get Away with Being a War President?






























How Did We Ever Let Bush Get Away with Being a War President?
What George W. Bush loved best about his job was being a war president. Playing war, that is, as opposed to making war like a grown-up. Remember him strutting onto that carrier in his little flight jacket? You never saw Eisenhower, a real general, playing out his martial fantasies this way. You can take the drink out of the drunk, but you can't take the swagger out of a fool.

Compare Bush's eight years to Clinton's, and you see how much he loved to play the soldier. No one expected that from a Republican: Reagan and Bush senior were cautious about betting America's chips. Liberals used to make fun of Reagan for picking on tiny helpless nations that couldn't fight back. Now they are remembering with pure nostalgia Reagan's invasion of Grenada, air raids on Libya, and even our 1984 withdrawal from Beirut.

We'll never know how far W. would have gone to find himself a war because he had all he needed delivered by air on Sept. 11, 2001. Remember how people felt in those days? A friend of mine said, "It was like the aliens had invaded."

We needed our president to be a hero and made him into one, even though it was obvious he wasn't up to the job. He didn't take the first plane to Manhattan, stand there and say, "We're coming for you bastards!" Instead he sat in a roomful of children, reading My Pet Goat, then dropped off the radar for hours before his handlers got him ready.

Maybe there's a lesson here: if the president doesn't cut it in a crisis, we're better off admitting that to ourselves and telling him so instead of pretending he's a great leader. When you make a weakling into a hero, you give him a lot of power. If we'd kept our eyes open and faced the fact that Bush reacted badly to 9/11, we might have been able to ask for a little more detail about his big plans.

Those came courtesy of Cheney and his neocon punks. What a crew these guys were! Like their boss, they were also woofers, boasters -- but of a different variety. Dubya was your standard frat boy loudmouth, but Cheney, with his talk about "working the dark side," was more like the ultimate Dungeons and Dragons nerd. And you couldn't ask Hollywood to serve up a goofier selection of dorks than his neocon staffers, who drifted from the universities to D.C. the way has-been pop singers switch to country and western to leech off a new bunch of suckers.

On the one hand, they were scared to death of Arabs and hated all Muslims. On the other, they were convinced that every Muslim on the planet really wanted, deep in his heart, to be magically turned into an Ohio Republican. That was their theory: take an anti-American Arab country, add an invading army, and voila! a nice fluffy democracy souffle.

So we poured American blood and treasure into the Iraqi dust to prove the half-baked theories of a bunch of tenth-rate professors. The most expensive experiment in the history of the world, all to learn something any 10-year-old could have told them: people don't take to foreign troops on their streets, and not everybody wants to be like us. You know those Ig-Nobel awards they hand out to the dumbest science projects of the year? The Iraq invasion is the all-time winner. Retire the trophy with the names of the winning team: Bush, Cheney, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith.

But first came Afghanistan -- "the graveyard of empires." Every military-history wannabe was conjuring the ghosts of that Victorian British army slaughtered by the Afghans, along with all the propaganda we'd been pushing about the invincible mujahedeen who'd driven out the Soviets. Looking back, what they had routed was a dying Soviet state, and they didn't even manage to do that until we took the risk of giving them Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. But all the pundits' knees were shaking about going into the Afghan haunted house.

We started slow, the way American armies tend to do, taking a while to limber up. There were weeks of bombing the Shomali Plain to no visible effect and a Special Forces raid on Mullah Omar's compound that was more "Naked Gun" than "Top Gun." Then Mazar-i-Sharif in the north fell suddenly, and it turned into the kind of war that Northern Alliance fighters and fighter-bomber pilots both love: hunting down a fleeing enemy.

The campaign went so well, so fast, that it taught Bush and Cheney the wrong lessons. They started exporting democracy to Afghanistan, even hiring a local Pashtun girl to read the Kabul evening news. When you tell a big, backwards tribe like the Pashtun that you're going to turn their whole world upside down for them, you shouldn't expect them to be grateful. But we did, setting ourselves up for a whole lot of trouble later on.

Worse yet, Bush's people figured that since Afghanistan, the tough nut, cracked so easily, their pet project, a second Iraq invasion, would be a cakewalk. This time they would do it right, occupying the Iraqi cities instead of just crushing Saddam's army and withdrawing like Bush senior did.

Nobody wants to recall what Americans believed back then. That's OK: I'll remember it. People thought that Saddam was "connected to" 9/11, and his agents were going to poison our water, nuke our cities, and gas our subways. At least they claimed to believe all that unlikely James Bond stuff. I don't think they really did. There was just so much revenge momentum after 9/11 that it had to burst out somewhere. Everybody wanted payback. It's natural. But most of the time, in your average democracy, cooler heads are in charge. Not this time. Bush and his team were foaming at the mouth far more than the average citizen. It was like a crazed sheriff trying to talk a lukewarm mob into a lynching frenzy. With the help of people who should have known better -- I'm looking at you, Colin Powell -- he got his way.

That, in the short version, is why George W. Bush is about to leave office the most unpopular American president in history. You can spin Iraq a hundred different ways, but it still comes up bad news because once the dust settles, the Iranians are in control of the whole region, and they didn't have to fire a shot. We destroyed their old rival for them.

It's a simple story: we crushed Saddam's army, occupied the cities, and then acted like the whole country would turn itself into a neocon fantasyland. Paul Bremer's cult kids were talking tax reform while the Iraqi army they had sent home unemployed was busy digging up the weapons they had buried in their yards. Bush's counterinsurgency policy was pretending there was no insurgency then pretending it was just Saddam's "deadenders." When Saddam's capture at the end of 2003 didn't slow the insurgency, Bush's defenders stopped acting like they knew what was going on and just settled for blaming the Iranians -- as if it was a nasty surprise that Iran, the country that openly hates America most in the whole world, might get involved in anti-American operations when we occupied Iraq right next door.

People ask what our counterinsurgency strategy was before the surge. Easy: we had none. We were doing nothing but offering the insurgents moving targets. A standard operation for the occupation force in those dark days was patrolling through an alien Sunni neighborhood, waiting for an IED to go off under the lead vehicle or for an RPG or small-arms ambush. When that happens, conventional forces have a grim choice: do nothing, withdrawing while the locals snicker at your dead and wounded, or open fire on everyone in sight. Either way, the insurgents win. If you withdraw, they've hit you with impunity and gained respect in the neighborhood. If you open fire on the slums, you kill civilians and make enemies.

Effective counterinsurgency means not relying on massive firepower the way conventional forces are trained to do. The idea is not to fire until you know exactly who you're up against. It's the opposite of shock and awe. It's discipline and patience. Gen. David Petraeus implemented a set of reforms usually called the surge, though they were about tactics more than reinforcements. All he really did was initiate overdue standard counterinsurgency doctrine. He integrated U.S. units with Iraqi forces then sent them out into the neighborhoods. You can't run any kind of counterinsurgency plan without good street-level intelligence, but Bush's people wouldn't admit that there was an insurgency, so they wouldn't commit to learning about it. Their style was to ignore it and hope it would go away.

That's why Afghanistan went well in the early stages: we didn't go in trying to turn the Afghans into democrats, but trying to crush the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In Iraq, Bush was dreaming from the start, so the whole effort was doomed.

The surge worked about as well as any good counterinsurgency effort could. We know a little about the enemy now, and there's less violence because all the neighborhoods had already been ethnically cleansed. Baghdad is now a Shi'ite city. There are a few Sunni enclaves, but the Shia rule the city and the country, with the Kurds fortifying themselves up north and wishing they could saw their territory off and relocate it somewhere in mid-ocean.

That's what Bush's trillion-dollar investment in Iraq has bought.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Obama Has to Pay for Eight Years of Bush's Delusions

















Obama Has to Pay for Eight Years of Bush's Delusions
American lawyers defending six Algerians before a habeas corpus hearing in Washington this week learned some very odd things about US intelligence after 9/11. From among the millions of "raw" reports from American spies and their "assets" around the world came a CIA Middle East warning about a possible kamikaze-style air attack on a US navy base at a south Pacific island location. The only problem was that no such navy base existed on the island and no US Seventh Fleet warship had ever been there. In all seriousness, a US military investigation earlier reported that Osama bin Laden had been spotted shopping at a post office on a US military base in east Asia.

That this nonsense was disseminated around the world by those tasked to defend the United States in the "war on terror" shows the fantasy environment in which the Bush regime has existed these past eight years. If you can believe that bin Laden drops by a shopping mall on an American military base, then you can believe that everyone you arrest is a "terrorist", that Arabs are "terrorists", that they can be executed, that living "terrorists" must be tortured, that everything a tortured man says can be believed, that it is legitimate to invade sovereign states, to grab the telephone records of everyone in America. As Bob Herbert put it in The New York Times a couple of years ago, the Bush administration wanted these records "which contain crucial documentation of calls for a Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Indiana, and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Alabama, to help in the search for Osama bin Laden". There was no stopping Bush when it came to trampling on the US Constitution. All that was new was that he was now applying the same disrespect for liberty in America that he had shown in the rest of the world.

But how is Barack Obama going to repair the titanic damage which his vicious, lying predecessor has perpetrated around the globe and within the US itself? John F Kennedy once said that "the United States, as the world knows, will never start a war". After Bush's fear-mongering and Rumsfeld's "shock and awe" and Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Guantanamo and secret renditions, how does Obama pedal his country all the way back to Camelot? Our own dear Gordon Brown's enthusiasm to Hoover up the emails of the British people is another example of how Lord Blair's sick relationship with Bush still infects our own body politic. Only days before the wretched president finally departs from us, new US legislation will ensure that citizens of his lickspittle British ally will no longer be able to visit America without special security clearance. Does Bush have any more surprises for us before 20 January? Indeed, could anything surprise us any more?

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Republican Values Are Not American Values
































GOP at Odds with Country
Just a few years ago conservatives were planning on establishing a permanent Republican majority. Now they're stuck in the minority for the foreseeable future, beset by infighting and increasingly at odds with the rest of the country.

Take, for example, the hot-button issue of the moment: Sarah Palin. Before the election, nearly 60 percent of Americans believed Palin was not qualified to be Vice President. But nearly 70 percent of Republican said after the election that Palin helped the Republican ticket. Sixty-four percent want the Alaska Governor to be the GOP nominee for president in 2012. Only 20 percent of Republicans think she hurt John McCain. That group, presumably, includes McCain's own staff, which keeps leaking damning details about Palin to the press.

A similar conundrum for Republicans exists when voters are asked how the GOP should position itself after Barack Obama's historic win. In the wake of their lopsided defeat last Tuesday, top conservatives are urging the party to move even further to the right. Following a strategy session among conservative leaders last week, the Cybercast News Service reported: "There was a consensus among the group that conservative ideas and principles had not been defeated in Tuesday's election, but a Republican Party that walked away from these principles had been defeated."

According to the polling outfit Democracy Corps [pdf], a plurality of Republicans believe the party lost in '06 and '08 "because they are not conservative enough." A majority of Republicans say that in order to win in the future, "the Republican Party needs to move more to the right and back to its conservative principles." Republicans are split nearly evenly on whether to help Obama or oppose his plans.

The rest of the country couldn't disagree more. According to the same poll, 53 percent of voters said Republicans lost in '06 and '08 "because they are too conservative"; 60 percent advised Republicans to "move to the center in order to win back moderate and independent voters"; and 71 percent urged the GOP to "give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his plans."

The disconnect between Republicans and everyone else these days is pretty staggering. It's going to be a long, cold winter for the Grand 'Ol Party.

UPDATE: New York Times columnist David Brooks on the future (or lack thereof) of the conservative movement. "Now it's just a circular firing squad with everybody attacking each other and no coherent belief system, no leaders," Brooks said on Sunday. "You got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come rescue them. The other half waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs, really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain."

Monday, November 10, 2008

Activism, Involvement and A Pursuit of The Common Good
































Activism, Involvement and A Pursuit of The Common Good

Standing at the edge of the area reserved for Obama's people in Grant Park, Chicago, I had a good view of the President-elect as he gave his victory speech, but a much better view of the campaigners who had brought about this extraordinary victory, which was just sinking in around me.

The evening was radiant and glorious, but it's wrong to see this simply as the triumph of African-American blood or the finishing line of some long ideological march. 'Yes, we can' is a political slogan, but it is also the activist's chant, and what I saw on a lot of the faces was hard practicality and the know-how of civic activism.

The night before I spent some time at the 'Last Call For Change' event in the Democrats' temporary quarters in Illinois Street, Chicago. The 150 volunteers crammed into the hot, airless space weren't new to this game. Like Obama, who once worked in the city's deprived South Side, these people were veterans of campaigns to improve schools, the cleaning up of wasteland and the alleviation of the unbearable poverty that startles the stranger's gaze in so many big US cities. Twenty-four hours later they were the ones who cheered hardest when Obama talked about harnessing energy, creating jobs, building schools and looking after 'not only ourselves, but each other'.

As someone who has come late to political activism of a sort, that seems to me to be the single most important part of the transformational campaign. It is amazing to me that so many conservatives in America, and to a lesser extent in Britain, have not yet grasped that, while the Obama campaign championed rights, it also placed an equal emphasis on civic commitment, which is at the heart of his appeal. He is not the Obi-Wan Kenobi of liberals, as they tried to portray him, not a dangerous leftie or the champion of command economy reform. He is a practical man who shrinks from the individualism that was spawned by Sixties liberalism, nurtured by Margaret Thatcher's influence and encouraged by the Bush administration as a strategy of social abdication.

The philosopher Michael Sandel, quoted in the New York Times last week, talked about the multiple crises facing the President-elect. 'The challenges are so great,' he wrote, 'that he will only succeed if he is able to articulate a new politics of the common good. In this election the American people rejected narrow notions of the common good ... Obama will have to reinvent government as an instrument of the common good - to regulate markets, to protect citizens against the risks of unemployment and ill health, to invest in energy independence.'

The trick will be to move the ethic of local activism into the decisions of national government; and that, oddly enough, may be aided by the realisation that has dawned during the financial crisis that most of us had been looking after ourselves, rather than each other. What only a few saw was that easy credit and the illusion of wealth encouraged political disengagement. Politics became collusion between policy-makers, opinion-formers who were too interested in cosying up to power and the self-interest of the majority, which, as a friend of mine wittily put it, saw the business conducted in Washington and Westminster as no more interesting or relevant than the work of a utility company. Government was way out there doing its thing unseen and damned near unscrutinised.

It explains how the Bush administration passed so many laws that would obviously damage the environment, for instance the mountaintop removal by the coal companies in Kentucky, and why in Britain neither the widening gap between the rich and poor nor the attack on constitutional rights caused much alarm. We were too busy getting and spending cheap money that was stolen from the future.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Fox News Blames Obama For Stock Market Fall





































Fox News Blames Obama For Stock Market Fall
The last two days on Wall Street “were the worst in the American stock market since 1987.” The Dow Jones industrial average lost nearly 1,000 points and the S&P 500 “a broader measure of stocks, lost nearly 10 percent of its value.”

Fox News seized the opportunity. Many of its pundits and hosts have suggested, or even claimed outright, that the stock market plunge is the direct result of Barack Obama’s presidential election victory:

– Gretchen Carlson: “There’s a lot of feeling in the market not reacting very well to the election of Barack Obama.”

– Fred Barnes: “We have seen the stock market go down over 800 points the last two days. There is great uncertainty out there about [Obama’s] policies.”

– Dick Morris: “Now the other thing that I predicted in “Fleeced” is that the stock market would go crazy after he was elected. Not just because he’s a radical, not just because he’s a Democrat, but because he’s going to raise the capital gains tax. […] Its going to continue to tank.”

Even Fox News’s business guru Neil Cavuto chimed in, wondering if “there is a connection” between the falling market and the Obama election. However, minutes later, he said, “You don’t want to glean too much politically into it.” Watch the compilation:

In fact, the recent market plunge has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. As The New York Times noted, “There were no clear catalysts that spurred the sell-off…beyond the regular drumbeat of poor earnings from the corporate sector and bleak data on the economy.” Moreover, “[s]lumping retail sales and weakness in the auto sector” also helped send stocks plummeting. One market expert noted that “regardless of who won, there is no quick-term solution to the global economic crisis.”

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that stocks have rebounded this morning. Perhaps we should expect then that Fox News will give the credit to Obama.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Foreclosed - The George W. Bush Story









































Foreclosed - The George W. Bush Story
When historians look back, it will be far clearer that the "commander-in-chief" of a "wartime" country and his top officials were focused, first and foremost, not on the shifting central theaters of their "Global War on Terror" but on the theater that mattered most to them--the "home front," where they spent inordinate amounts of time selling the American people a bill of goods. Of his timing in ramping up a campaign to invade Iraq in September 2002, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card infamously explained: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

Indeed.

From a White House where "victory strategies" meant purely for domestic consumption poured out, to the Pentagon where bevies of generals, admirals and other high officers were constantly being mustered, not to lead armies but to lead public opinion, their selling focus was total. They were always releasing new product.

And don't forget their own set of soaring inside-the-Beltway fantasies. After all, if a salesman is going to sell you some defective product, it always helps if he can sell himself on it first. And on this score, they were world champs.

Because events made it look so foolish, the phrase "shock and awe" that went with the initial attack on Iraq in March 2003 has now passed out of official language and (together with "mission accomplished") into the annals of irony. Back then, though, as bombs and missiles blew up parts of Baghdad--to fabulous visual effect in that other "theater" of war, television--the phrase was constantly on official lips and in media reports everywhere. It went hand-in-glove with another curious political phrase: regime change.

Given the supposed unique technological proficiency of the US military and its array of "precision" weapons, the warriors of Bushworld convinced themselves that a new era in military affairs had truly dawned. An enemy "regime" could now be taken out--quite literally and with surgical precision, in its bedrooms, conference rooms, and offices, thanks to those precision weapons delivered long-distance from ship or plane. Poof! You only had to say the word and an oppressive regime would be, as it was termed, "decapitated." Its people would then welcome with open arms relatively small numbers of American troops as liberators.

It all sounded so good--high-tech,relatively simple, casualty-averse and clean as a whistle. Even better, once there had been such a demonstration, a guaranteed "cakewalk"--as, say, in Iraq--who would ever dare stand up to American power again? Not only would one hated enemy dictator be dispatched to the dustbin of history but evildoers everywhere, fearing the Bush equivalent of the wrath of Khan, would be shock-and-awed into submission or quickly dispatched in their own right.

In reality (what a nasty word!), the shock-and-awe attacks used on Iraq got not a single leader of the Saddamist regime, not one of that pack of fifty-two cards (including of course the ace of spades, Saddam Hussein, found in his "spider hole" so many months later). Iraqi civilians were the ones killed in that precise and shocking moment, while Iraqi society was set on the road to destruction, and the world was not awed.

Strangely enough, though, the phrase, once reversed, proved applicable to the Bush administration's seven-year, post-9/11 history. They were, in a sense, the awe-and-shock administration. Initially, they were awed by the supposedly singular power of the American military to dominate and transform the planet; then, they were continually shocked and disbelieving when that same military, despite its massive destructive power, turned out to be incapable of doing so, or even of handling two ragtag insurgencies in two weakened countries, one of which, Afghanistan, was among the poorest and least technologically advanced on the planet.

The Theater of War

In remarkably short order, historically speaking, the administration's soaring imperial fantasies turned into planetary nightmares. After 9/11, of course, George W. and crew promised Americans the global equivalent--and Republicans the domestic equivalent--of a 36,000 stock market, and we know just where the stock market is today: only about 27,000 points short of that irreality.

Once upon a time, they really did think that, via the US Armed Forces, or, as George W. Bush once so breathlessly put it, "the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known," they could dominate the planet without significant help from allies or international institutions of any sort. Who else had a shot at it? In the post-Soviet world, who but a leadership backed by the full force of the US military could possibly be a contender for the leading role in this epic movie? Who else could even turn out for a casting call? Impoverished Russia? China, still rebuilding its military and back then considered to have a host of potential problems? A bunch of terrorists? I mean... come on!

As they saw it, the situation was pretty basic. In fact, it gave the phrase "power politics" real meaning. After all, they had in their hands the reins attached to the sole superpower on this small orb. And wasn't everyone--at least, everyone they cared to listen to, at least Charles Krauthammer and the editorial page of the Washington Post-- saying no less?

I mean, what else would you do, if you suddenly, almost miraculously (after an election improbably settled by the Supreme Court), found yourself in sole command of the globe's only "hyperpower," the only sheriff on planet Earth, the New Rome. To make matters more delicious, in terms of getting just what you wanted, those hands were on those reins right after "the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century," when Americans were shocked and awed and terrified enough that "anything goes" seemed a reasonable response?

It might have gone to anyone's head in imperial Washington at that moment, but it went to their heads in such a striking way. After all, theirs was a plan--labeled in 2002 the Bush Doctrine--of global domination conceptually so un-American that, in my childhood, the only place you would have heard it was in the mouths of the most evil, snickering imperial Japanese, Nazi, or Soviet on-screen villains. And yet, in their moment of moments, it just rolled right out of their heads and off their tongues-- and they were proud of it.

Here's a question for 2009 you don't have to answer: What should the former "new Rome" be called now? That will, of course, be someone else's problem.

The Cast of Characters

And what a debacle the Bush Doctrine proved to be. What a legacy the legacy president and his pals are leaving behind. A wrecked economy, deflated global stock markets, collapsing banks and financial institutions, soaring unemployment, a smashed Republican Party, a bloated Pentagon overseeing a strained, overstretched military, mired in an incoherent set of still-expanding wars gone sour, a network of secret prisons, as well as Guantánamo, that "jewel in the crown" of Bush's Bermuda Triangle of injustice, and all the grim practices that went with those offshore prisons, including widespread torture and abuse, kidnapping, assassination and the disappearing of prisoners (once associated only with South America dictatorships and military juntas).

They headed a government that couldn't shoot straight or plan ahead or do anything halfway effectively, an administration that emphasized "defense"--or "homeland security," as it came to be called in their years--above all else; yet they were always readying themselves for the last battle, and so were caught utterly, embarrassingly unready for nineteen terrorists with box cutters, a hurricane named Katrina and an arcane set of Wall Street derivatives heading south.

As the supposed party of small government, they succeeded mainly in strangling civilian services, privatizing government operations into the hands of crony corporations and bulking up state power in a massive way--making an already vast intelligence apparatus yet larger and more labyrinthine, expanding spying and surveillance of every kind, raising secrecy to a first principle, establishing a new US military command for North America, endorsing a massive Pentagon build-up, establishing a second Defense Department labeled the Department of Homeland Security with its own mini-homeland-security-industrial complex, evading checks and powers in the Constitution whenever possible, and claiming new powers for a "unitary executive" commander-in-chief presidency.

No summary can quite do justice to what the administration "accomplished" in these years. If there was, however, a single quote from the world of George W. Bush that caught the deepest nature of the president and his core followers, it was offered by an "unnamed administration official"--often assumed to be Karl Rove--to journalist Ron Suskind back in October 2004:

[He] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore,'" he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors.... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

'We create our own reality.'

It must for years have seemed that way and everything about the lives they lived only reinforced that impression. After all, the president himself, as so many wrote, lived in a literal bubble world. Those who met him were carefully vetted; audiences were screened so that no one who didn't fawn over him got near him; and when he traveled through foreign cities, they were cleared of life, turned into the equivalent of Potemkin villages, while he and his many armored cars and Blackhawk helicopters, his huge contingent of Secret Service agents and White House aides, his sniffer dogs and military sharpshooters, his chefs and who knows what else passed through.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Republicans to Try Burning Obama on Coal








































Lies, Half Truths and Contradictions: Chronicle ''Hidden'' Audio on Obama

It's not true.

But the Drudge Report, the Republican National Committee and apparently even GOP VP candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fell for completely fabricated news from a shady website called Newsbusters today suggesting the San Francisco Chronicle has ''hidden'' audio with Sen. Barack Obama regarding his statements on coal.

''Barack Obama explained his plan to the San Francisco Chronicle this year,'' she told a rally in Ohio Sunday. ''He said that sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry.''

She added, ''And you've got to listen to the tape.''

''Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?'' Palin asked the crowd, according to a report from CBS News. Someone in the crowd shouted, ''Liberal media!'

Let's be very clear: the Chronicle did not, and has never, hidden any interview, audio or video, of Obama from its readers.

The truth: the paper's January editorial board session with Obama included comments about coal. The entire interview has been in the public domain, available on line to the public -- and to the McCain campaign -- since early January.

''How can anyone suggest that we hid an interview that we did, immediately put up on the web -- and advertised to our readers,'' said editorial page editor John Diaz Sunday, regarding his hosting of Obama at the session. ''We promoted it like like hell...and I'm sure the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign scrubbed it. You can still find the whole 48 minutes and 33 seconds on line.''

Obama's campaign responded to Palin's comments today, noting correctly that the wide-ranging interview also included the Illinois Senator's comments that the idea of eliminating coal plants was ''an illusion.''

Apparently neither campaign, until now, ever felt there was much worth mentioning regarding Obama's coal comments. But it's now two days before the election and McCain is in a do-or-die battle in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

A final note: the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle's coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ''hidden'' Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn't confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

He got taken. And so did the rest.